Then these two quote a verse from Sama
Veda, II:6,8: "Ahmad acquired religious law (Shariah) from his Lord. This
religious law is full of wisdom. I receive light from him just as from the
sun." They get the translation almost right with a peculiarly Islamic
twist. The proper translation is, "I from my Father have obtained
deep knowledge of eternal Law; I was born like unto the Sun". As for
'Ahmad', once again it is a typical example of sleight-of-hand like Mamah.
The actual Sanskrit term is 'ahammiddhi' , 'aham' meaning “ I”.

To clinch the matter, the scholars then quote from Rig
Veda V, 27, 1: "The wagon-possessor, the truthful and truth-loving, extremely
wise, powerful and generous, Mamah [Mohammad] has favored me with his
words. The son of the All-powerful, possessing all good attributes, the
mercy for the worlds has become famous with ten thousand
[companions]."

However, the standard translation of this verse
reads, "The Godlike hero, famousest of nobles, hath granted me two
oxen with a wagon. Trvrsan's son Tryaruna hath distinguished himself,
Vaisvanara Agni! with ten thousands". "Vaisvanara" is
another name for the fire-god, but it is not known with certainty who
Trvrsan or his son might be. However, Haq leaves out the reference to the
Fire-god. Trvsran becomes another name for Allah (on the grounds perhaps
that there is a possibility that the name can refer to a god) while the
name Tryaruna is omitted altogether. Instead he once again falls back on
the standby of Mamah. Apparently wherever the particular combination of
letters forming the word 'mamah', whether alone or whether occurring in
combination of other letters in a word, it is employed to prove that it
indicates Muhammad. The maximum the verse can be stretched to read is
that, "O fire, lord of mankind! the protector of the righteous,
extremely wise, lordly (incidentally the term employed here is 'asura')
and rich, Trivsran's son Tryaruna has given me two cows yoked to a wagon
and ten thousand gold pieces and thus gained fame". The singer of the
verse is being favoured not with words of wisdom but with material gifts.
One cannot call Haq's translation anything other than a lie. Not
surprisingly he leaves the rest of the hymn alone. In it the singer
explains that the king had given him these gifts because he had pleased
him with his praise and he asks the gods to grant happiness to the donor.
Further Dr.Zakir Naik in his site says

Muhammad
(pbuh) prophesised in the Rigveda

A
similar prophecy is also found in Rigveda Book I, Hymn 53 verse 9:

The
Sanskrit word used is Sushrama, which means praiseworthy or well
praised which in Arabic means Muhammad (pbuh).

The
above specified Hymn and verse translates as :“ With all-outstripping chariot-wheel, O Indra, thou far-famed,
hast overthrown the twice ten Kings of men,
With sixty thousand nine-and-ninety followers, who came in arms to fight
with friendless Susravas.”

It
speaks about Indra, a praise to Indra and not Muhammad!! Dr.Naik Susrava
is singular. Susravas = plural. Group of praiseworthy people. So it does
not point to Muhammad!

5.
The last premise would be logic.
Dr.Naik and Dr.Haq seem to commit several logical fallacies. They tend to
contradict each other. They say they don’t believe in HINDU scriptures
once. You can find how Zakir Naik criticizes Hindu way of worship in a
section called “Conveying Islam To A Hindu”. But still he uses Hindu
scriptures’ authority to prove Muhammad’s prophethood and Islam’s
validity! Either this proves

*Hindu
religion is truly divine.

*
Allah did not give enough proofs in Qur’an to sustain his claims.

*
All muslims must convert to Hinduism.

*
Muslim scholars are bluffing to convert Hindus just like they do to
Christian.

Another
claim of Muhammad being Kalki Avatar is also doing rounds. Due to space
and time constraint, let me tell you, AVATAR = GOD INCARNATE. Muhammad was
a normal arab who did nothing! Kalki Avatar will have 8 superhuman
qualities. Muhammad had none. For a more detailed explanation, of why
Muhammad cannot be Kalki Avatar can be found here.

A
Point To Ponder Upon

The Vedas are supposed to be most supreme text of
Hindus along with the Gita. There are 4 Vedas.

The
number of verses in the Rig Veda total 10800

The Number of verses in
Atharva Veda total 5987

The
Number of verses in Yajur Veda total 2000

The
number of verses in Sama Veda total 1875

Therefore,
length of Vedas =10800 + 5987
+ 2000 + 1875 = 20662

Length of Qur’an = 6346

Ratio = Length of Vedas
/ Length of Qur’an = 3.255

The Qur’an is thrice as small as Vedas. When
muslim scholars take a lots of time to learn Arabic, memorise
Qur’an,read hadiths, do you believe they can learn Sanskrit, or even if
not, read such big Vedas, interpret them, and present it? Some people who
get money do this, for them, they just vomit whatever they get on hand
without giving it a thinking. Imagine, Upanishads, Puranas, Bhagavad
gita,etc. when put together will take a lifetime to read and understand
them.

I strongly feel, Dr.Ali Sina is of much higher
caliber than any of these meek so-called scholars (for dollars??). Ali
doesn’t provide stupid data like these people. Hope Hindus now have a
clear idea of what this hoax of Muhammad in Hindu scriptures are all
about. They are nothing but words on water.

Conclusion

The amount of manipulation and misdirection we see
with these men is astonishing. The Islamic propagators are either grossly
misled or are apparently relying on the fact that not enough of their
readers will know Sanskrit or bother to look up references. They happily
mistranslate and use symbolism without any shred of proof. One understands
their eagerness to prove that Islam is the culmination of every religion. However one has to wonder, if the faith of the
writers like these is so insecure that they have to search in other
religions for legitimacy. Also one has to wonder what this
says of other Muslim scholars who have read the Vedas before. None of them
had ever read any of the meanings that Dr.Naik or Dr.Haq finds; obviously
they were either more foolish or less learned than our Dr.Naik/Dr.Haq.
However, the climax comes in this assertion: "The Vedas contain many
prophecies about Prophet Muhammad. Some European and Hindu translators of
the Vedas have removed the name referring to the Prophet, while others
have tried to explain away the mantras (verses) on his life events,
Ka’bah, Makkah, Medinah, Arabia, and other events using the terminology
of the Hindus, such as purification rituals, and lands and rivers in
India". In other words, explain what scholars might like, our good
Islamic Sanskrit scholar knows that they would be lies. Dr.Naik/Dr.Haq
operates under the assumption that anyone who tries to refute them is by
the very definition a liar. This assertion is a wonderful way of not
having to face the truth. (Of course I personally believe that Haq's book/
Zakir Naik’s Da’wah material is not meant for either the Hindu or the
serious scholar; it is targeted at the Muslims to strengthen their faith).
Hope I have made it clear to many people, especially Hindus about the lies
of Dr.Zakir Naik and Dr.Abdul Haq, of how they write
articles,books,da’wah material,etc. just to fool the ignorant Hindus,
because most Hindus are not fanatically religious and conaequently they
don’t read much of their books. Infact when a Hindu reads this article,
he/she will have increased faith in HINDUISM than converting to Islam.
Thanks to bad marketing techniques of Dr.Zakir Naik blemished with lies.

Muslims
tend to replace every ‘praiseworthy’ with ‘Muhammad’. Ambrose
Bierce said “There are four kinds of Homicide: felonious, excusable,
justifiable, and praiseworthy.” Now Muslims, why don’t you try
replacing praiseworthy with Muhammad here?